Standing Committee G

[Mr. Win Griffiths in the Chair]

Education Bill

Graham Brady: On a point of order, Mr. Griffiths. At this morning's sitting it is likely that, once again, we will fall into the trap whereby important and controversial clauses to which a number of amendments have been tabled might not be reached because of the knife that is due to fall at 1 o'clock. I want to make it known that, through the usual channels, Conservative members have sought a Programming Sub-Committee this morning. Although the Government frequently say that they are willing to offer more time, they are, again, showing no flexibility over the guillotine, which we believe to be the origin of the problem. It is regrettable that we have not reached an agreement about it. We shall do our best to ensure that the important clauses are dealt with this morning, but it is important to record the fact that there has not been agreement on the way in which we should proceed.

Win Griffiths: That is not a point of order. It is should be dealt with through the usual channels.

John Heppell: Further to that point of order, Mr. Griffiths. Although I made it plain last week that any Opposition request for extra time would probably be accepted as long as it was received in time, by last night we had had no such request. As a result, the Minister suggested that it would be useful to have extra time on Tuesday night in order to advance the work of the Committee. I gave a note to that effect to the Opposition last night. At 9.20 pm we were told that they had a proposal. I said that if that were put to us, we would consider it. However, I cannot see the point of convening a Sub-Committee until I know what the proposal is.

Win Griffiths: Now that we have discussed that, we can get on with the main business.Clause 62 Academies

Clause 62 - Academies

Graham Brady: I beg to move, amendment No. 476, in page 42, line 9, after 'may', insert
', and where section [Parents' Demand for Additional Schools or Academies] applies, shall'.

Win Griffiths: With this it will be convenient to take the following:
 Amendment: No. 477, in clause 66, page 43, line 31, after 'may' insert 
', and where section [Parents' Demand for Additional Schools or Academies] applies, shall'.
 Amendment No. 478, in clause 66, page 44, line 13, after 'may', insert 
', and where section [Parents' Demand for Additional Schools or Academies] applies, shall'.
 New clause 7—Parents' demand for additional schools or academies:— 
'(a) Where the conditions in subsection (b) apply the prescribed person shall consider the establishment of a school of a description in section 66(2). 
 (b) The conditions are: 
 (i) that an initial proposal, generally conforming to a form prescribed by regulations, for a new school has been published; 
 (ii) that a number of parents of pupils likely to be eligible for admission to the school have indicated in writing their support for the initial proposal; 
 (iii) that the initial proposal and the indications of support shall have been delivered to the prescribed person. 
 (c) The prescribed person is (in the case of an Academy) the Secretary of State and (in the case of a community, foundation or voluntary school) the local education authority. 
 (d) The Secretary of State shall by regulation, to be approved by positive vote of both Houses, set out the content of the form of initial proposal mentioned in subsection (b)(i) above, that content not to require the provision of information not generally available to members of the public. 
 (e) Where a initial proposal has been considered the prescribed person shall either give in writing his reasons for the rejection of the proposal (which must be from among those set out in subsection (f) below),or use his best endeavours to establish a new school or academy broadly conforming to the initial proposal. 
 (f) The reasons for rejection are: 
 (i) that there are sufficient places available for pupils of the age and number mentioned in the initial proposal in schools within reasonable travelling time of the pupils' homes, such schools not being in special measures or having serious weaknesses, and 
 (ii) that there are sufficient places available for pupils of the age and number mentioned in the initial proposal in schools of the character mentioned in the initial proposal within reasonable travelling time of the pupils' homes, such schools not being in special measures or having serious weaknesses, or 
 (iii) that insufficient parents have indicated their support for the initial proposal to make a school of the size and character mentioned in the initial proposal reasonably viable, having regard to current patterns of expenditure on schools in the area, or 
 (iv) such other reason as the Secretary of State may add by regulations to be approved by both Houses. 
 (g) The Secretary of State may issue guidance to assist in the development of initial proposals under this section. 
 (h) ''Proposals'' in this section does not have the meaning in section 66.'.

Graham Brady: I thank you for your guidance, Mr. Griffiths.
 The amendments and the new clause are simply to probe the Government's thinking. They seek to obtain an explanation as to why, on the establishment of additional schools or academies, the Minister once again, deems it to be necessary for sole discretion to be in the hands of the Secretary of State. Clause 62(1) states: 
''482 Academies
(1) The Secretary of State may enter into an agreement with any person under which—'',
 and in subsection (4) we learn that the Secretary of State must consult but 
''shall make any payments dependent on the fulfilment of—''
 conditions imposed. Of course, those conditions are imposed by the Secretary of State. The whole import of the clause turns entirely on ministerial discretion. 
 The contention of the amendments is that there are circumstances, other than ministerial whim or diktat, whereby the need for additional schools or academies may be accepted. 
 The amendments and the new clause consequent on them propose a transfer in the balance of power. Amendment No. 476 would add a provision about parental demand. Its point about parents in the locality wanting additional schools or academies is picked up by amendments Nos. 477 and 478. New clause 7 effectively seeks to set conditions that would require the establishment of new schools or academies. At the least, it would set out a process that would be more automatic and transparent, and would again take some discretion away from Ministers. It seeks to provide a clearer process for the establishment of schools and academies where there is a need or demand for them. 
 The amendments are intended to be probing so as to draw out the Minister's thinking, and we will be interested to hear what that may be.

Andrew Turner: I apologise to hon. Members, especially my hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale, West (Mr. Brady), for arriving in the middle of those remarks. I was able to hear that he had not progressed so far as the detail of new clause 7, and I want to add a little flesh to its bones. As he said, it would put more power into the hands of the consumers of the education service, and in certain circumstances would require the Secretary of State or the local education authority to take note of the desires of parents, as surrogates for the pupils, for the provision of additional school places.
 There may be two different reasons for that desire. First, many local authorities are seeing a rapid increase in their school populations. Traditionally, most local authorities have coped with that not by creating new schools, but by adding a few forms of entry to individual schools. My hon. Friend the Member for Fareham (Mr. Hoban) told me this morning in conversation that that is the position in his constituency, and he asked me to draw it to the Committee's attention. The consequence is that some comprehensive schools become extremely large. He foresees the time when three or four of the comprehensive schools that serve his area will have 1,750 pupils. 
 I taught in a comprehensive school with a similar number of pupils. Such a school presents different challenges from a school of 700 or 1,000 pupils, although those challenges vary depending on the area and the quality of the management and internal organisation of the school. The challenges to organisation are one thing, but the challenges to the pupils are entirely different. In many cases, pupils find it difficult to adapt, especially when they have been in small, rural primary schools. It is hard to move rapidly from a primary school of, say, 60 pupils to a 
 comprehensive school of 1,750 pupils, however good its internal organisation. 
 With 12 forms of 30 or so pupils each, there would be more than 240 pupils in a year group. Such a group would be far bigger than a child aged 11 would be used to coping with. Not unreasonably, parents believe that they should have a choice when such a choice can be realistically provided, and that there should not simply be a constant bolting-on of more permanent classes, let alone temporary ones, to existing schools. That is one reason why it would be right to enable parents to express a view about the need for new schools or academies to be provided, which is why we have tabled the new clause. 
 The second reason is the quality of the schools available. I have detained the Committee for far too long with stories from my experience to want to go over them all again, but the quality of education is not what it ought to be in some areas. Parents in those areas have to hope to be lucky enough to get their children into faith schools, because they do not have sufficient confidence in the community schools available to express first preference for any of them. In parts of London and, for all I know, other parts of the country, there are simply not sufficient places available that parents are prepared to put as their first preference. As a consequence, we have seen an efflux of pupils from inner London to the outer London boroughs. There is congestion in the schools of outer London boroughs, as well as serious traffic problems and severe dissatisfaction with the education available. 
 Some local authorities seem prepared to respond to the problem, but others do not. I welcome the fact that some seem able to respond, but we cannot simply leave the problem to local authorities if they are unwilling to respond to the demand of parents for adequate education. Nor, realistically, can we leave schools that are not satisfactory, and in which parents do not have confidence, in the hope that they will improve. Of course they should do so, but we cannot leave the problem until they do. A school that takes three years to improve takes three years out of the education of even those pupils who join it once the need for improvement has been recognised, let alone those who attended it beforehand. 
 Think how difficult it must be for parents in inner London boroughs who know that they are not of the Catholic faith and cannot apply to Catholic schools, know that they do not live near to perhaps the single community school that is not failing, does not have serious weaknesses or does not lack the confidence of the local community, and are not fortunate enough to gain admission for their children to city academies. I welcome the Government's creation of such academies in inner London boroughs and elsewhere, in the model of our city technology colleges. Think how difficult it must be if one is forced to send one's child to a school in which one does not have confidence, and if the only hope on the horizon is that three or four years down the line, the school will go through Ofsted inspections and special measures and drag itself up. 
 There is a serious weakness in the supply of good quality schools. It is a supply issue, so the demands of parents have to be realistically taken into account. I 
 genuinely welcome the Government's proposals for city academies, and their work to provide new schools in some areas with the support of sensible local education authorities, but not enough has yet been done. The new clause is designed to set out a procedure whereby parents can draw the need for additional schools to the attention of the local education authority in respect of schools, or of the Secretary of State in respect of academies. We suggest that when a small group of parents puts together an initial proposal, which must not be too detailed or onerous a task, when several parents have shown support for that proposal and when the proposal has been delivered to one or other of the prescribed persons—the Secretary of State or the local education authority—those authorities should be required to consider whether the proposal is realistic. 
 People should be able to say when they are not satisfied with what the council is providing and that they want a school of their own, as parents did in Bermondsey at the beginning of the last academic year, supported by the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes). I am glad that the council in that area was prepared to work with the hon. Gentleman, and helped to provide a school to tide over those parents until the Government's proposal for a city academy came on stream. In some areas, however, people will not be so fortunate. They may not be represented by a Member of Parliament who believes that they are right to take up such a cause. They might not have such a responsible local authority or a Secretary of State with her ear as close to the ground; one reason why her ear was so close to the ground in this case is that Southwark is only five miles from this place. People in other parts of the country do not have such an intimate communication with the Secretary of State, either through their councillors or through other means, but they should be able to bring to the Secretary of State's attention the need for an additional school. The Secretary of State or local authority should consider the proposal and, as we suggest in subsection (e) of the new clause, either reject it in writing, giving reasons so that those who made the proposal understand its rejection, or use their 
''best endeavours to establish a new school or academy broadly conforming to the initial proposal.''
 As we have said, we are not referring to the kind of proposal found under the School Standards and Framework Act 1998; it is not a formal proposal on which consultation is carried out. That is a job for the authorities, but the authorities would then have to use their best endeavours to create a new school or academy in line with the rest of this part of the Bill. 
 We set out the reasons why the Secretary of State might, rightly, consider rejecting the proposal. He does not have to reject the proposal in those circumstances, but he can do so. As always, we have allowed the Secretary of State latitude to introduce additional reasons for the rejection of proposals, given that we may not have been quick enough to include them in the amendment. Subsection (f)(iv) says that 
''the Secretary of State may add''
 other reasons 
''by regulations to be approved by both Houses.''
 Our proposal is an imaginative attempt to enable parents, when they are seriously dissatisfied with education provision, to ask the Secretary of State or local authority to take their concerns seriously and think about establishing one of the new schools of the kind that the Government are proposing. They should be able to ask the Secretary of State or local authority to do for them what was done for the constituency of the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey with the support of Southwark council. That is how to satisfy parents. 
 I am convinced that it contributes greatly to the success of a school if the pupils want to be there, if the school has the confidence of the parents and is a community effort. The school should not have to act in isolation with a group of pupils who are there reluctantly, however good the school is, because they could not get into the school of their choice.

Stephen Timms: I welcome you back to the Chair, Mr. Griffiths.
 I listened with interest to the brief speech made by the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale, West and the longer one from the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Turner). When I read the new clause, I thought that the arrangement would be commended on the basis that it is similar to the one operating in the Netherlands. I recall an article on that subject written by the hon. Member for Ashford (Mr. Green). However, it was not mentioned, so I shall not draw on the extensive research that I have undertaken only to refer to it in passing. 
 The scheme may based on the Dutch arrangement, under which parents are famously able to put forward proposals for a school, which under normal circumstances is supported out of state funds. If it is based on that arrangement, it is a somewhat watered down version, which would add little, if anything, to the arrangements that already prevail. 
 The objection made by the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale, West that the Secretary of State would be able to make decisions was rather odd, as that is where the decision-making power would rest under the free schools proposal that the Opposition used to—and perhaps still—support. In the Dutch system, the decisions must be made by the Minister.

Graham Brady: As the Minister may have been going on to admit, under the amendments and the new clause, the Secretary of State would retain the final decision-making capacity. We seek to raise the possibility through the amendments that the balance could be tipped procedurally so as to give the Secretary of State, to paraphrase my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight, an ear closer to the ground. The Secretary of State would have the ear of parents, who are likely to be acutely and rapidly aware of the situations in their locality.

Stephen Timms: Okay, so the amendments are about tilting the balance. I would argue that the
 arrangements already in place work well in that respect. The hon. Member for Isle of Wight said that the aim was to ensure that the Secretary of State could have her attention drawn to people's needs. He generously paid tribute to the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey, which will please the hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Laws). He also paid tribute to the London borough of Southwark and to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the way in which the arrangements worked well when a problem occurred in Bermondsey. I suggest that that shows that the arrangements already in place allow those matters to be addressed.
 Anyone can put forward proposals for new foundation or voluntary schools, or enter into agreement with the Secretary of State to establish an academy. It is the duty of the local education authority to provide sufficient schools for their area. The Secretary of State has the powers to direct LEAs to put forward proposals for additional places if, in her view, the supply in the area is insufficient. Under the new clause, the LEA would be able to refuse to bring forward proposals and the Secretary of State could enter an agreement for an academy only in the circumstances prescribed. 
 The prescribed circumstances are drawn broadly, for understandable reasons, but it reflects the fact that the existing arrangements, which have been in place in their essentials since the Education Act 1944, are there for a good reason. Proper consideration should be given before proposals are brought forward, with all interested parties having the opportunity to make their points in consultation. The arrangements also allow longer term planning, with supply and demand being considered over a reasonable period. 
 I suggest to Opposition Members that if the provisions in their new clause were taken seriously, they would not act very differently from the present arrangements. If there were insufficient places of that type in the area, and enough parents had indicated support for a school to make it viable, it would stand a good chance of going ahead under the existing arrangements. 
 Clause 66 already establishes new arrangements for additional secondary schools, which we think will provide the necessary encouragement to new providers. We want to encourage them—that is a clear feature of the Bill. The system that the Bill supports and amends is sufficiently broad to enable all proposals to receive proper consideration. The new clause would not add much and I urge hon. Members not to press it to a vote. I accept that in the sense of tilting the balance, as was argued by the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale, West, the proposal is very modest, but I hope that on reflection he will agree that it does not really add significantly to the current arrangements.

Graham Brady: I am grateful to the Minister who has praised me for both modesty and brevity, which is not always his habit. The thrust of his argument against the amendments and the new clause appeared to be almost entirely that the existing system works perfectly
 well and, effectively, that it cannot be improved. It is unwise for any Minister to argue that no improvement is possible, particularly when the avowed objective of a proposal is a fairly modest, incremental change. We were keen to emphasise the importance of parents in this context and to attempt—in a way that was, perhaps, partly symbolic—to make it clear that parents must be in the driving seat.

Andrew Turner: I was astonished—and my hon. Friend has expressed his astonishment too—by the Minister's assumption that on the whole things are working perfectly well. Perhaps he did not say ''perfectly'', but he claimed that they were working fairly well. They are not working perfectly well.
 In my constituency, where there is no Christian high school, and all the high schools are community schools, a group of parents has been working hard for three or four years to try to persuade the local education authority not that there should be a Christian high school but that there should be consultation on whether one is needed. The local education authority has consistently refused even to put the matter out to consultation. In its defence, it has a majority of Liberal Democrats, so it is not the fault of the officers, but there is total hostility to the idea of consulting parents about whether there should be a Christian high school. 
 What is proposed would require local authorities to take note of parents' views and, if there is reason, to use their best endeavours. I am sorry that the Minister did not appear to appreciate the problems that exist.

Win Griffiths: Order. I hope that interventions will be shorter in future.

Graham Brady: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his intervention, even if his enthusiasm drew it out a little more than he would have wished. He made an important point in a typically characteristic and even-handed way, demonstrating that he is prepared not only to praise the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey when it is appropriate, but to be the scourge of Liberal Democrats when they fail parents in his constituency. I expect that all hon. Members would endorse that stance.
 My hon. Friend's intervention highlighted ministerial complacency. I shall try to be almost as even-handed as my hon. Friend in saying that for too long, education policy in this country has been characterised by too much complacency, for the reasons suggested by my hon. Friend. No one looking objectively at our education system, at the schools available across great swathes of the country and at the education available in inner city areas could say with confidence, hand on heart, that it works as well as could be expected. It does not. It is palpably not doing so, and the people being let down are the parents and children in the communities served by those schools—rather, in the communities not being served by those schools. 
 As the Minister observed, our amendments did not go so far as to replicate the Dutch system, although there may be some merit in it. In a more modest way, 
 we sought to give more power, more authority and more weight to the views and concerns of parents—not only in inner London, the example given by my hon. Friend, but throughout the country. In my area, we have extremely good schools; but a large flow of children comes across the boundary from the Manchester local education authority area, where the schools typically are not so good. That happens throughout the country. The Under-Secretary, who represents a constituency on the other fringe of the Manchester conurbation, is nodding. He clearly accepts that there is a problem. 
 In opening this short debate, I made it clear that the amendments were probing and that I did not intend to press them to a Division. However, it is an important issue, and Ministers would do well to reflect on the complacency inherent in their saying that our system works perfectly well at the moment. If, later in the day, they sit in a quiet room later and reflect on the importance and thrust of that statement, they will come to the conclusion that the system does not work adequately, because it does not serve all parents and children nearly as well as it should. A change along the lines suggested in the amendment would take us a little way in the right direction. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. 
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Graham Brady: I beg to move amendment No. 467, in page 42, line 18, at end insert—
'(2) (a) An application may be made to the Secretary of State by the governing body of any maintained school seeking to become an academy. 
 (b) The Secretary of State shall have powers by order to give effect to an application under subsection (2)(a).'.
 Now for something slightly more challenging for the Under-Secretary. Ministers do not always find themselves in familiar territory when they encounter an Opposition who think through the issues, who are prepared to engage constructively with the Government and who, when they find areas of Government policy with which they have sympathy, are prepared to say so. When we see the Government seeking to develop an initiative such as the city academy—now to be the academies initiative—a policy that has much to offer, because we believe that schools converted to academy status and the new academies have a real contribution to make to the education of our children, we are prepared to say so. Not only are we prepared to say that we have some sympathy with the Government's policy, and to say that the establishment of academies and the expansion and development of the academy model may be beneficial whenever Ministers care to give weight and momentum to the academies policy; we are also prepared to be even more helpful. 
 In amendment No. 467, my hon. Friends and I seek to extend the Government's academy policy. We seek to assist Ministers—perhaps they have been slightly over-cautious, perhaps they were concerned that, even though they believe that their academies policy has been a huge and unmitigated success, they should not extend it too rapidly or should not risk others extending it too rapidly. We propose to insert in clause 62 a new subsection (2), which states that 
''An application may be made to the Secretary of State by the governing body of any maintained school seeking to become an academy.''
 I will be most interested to hear the Minister's remarks in this regard, because I hope that he will share my enthusiasm for the academy policy. I hope that he will see that it has a great deal to offer, far beyond its current scope. I hope that the Minister will see an opportunity in amendment No. 467. By being slightly less timid and cautious than the Government—perhaps that is the privilege or prerogative of the Opposition—we are giving him an opportunity to embrace a far more radical policy. 
 I am sure that when the Minister responds he will immediately take us through the benefits and strengths of the academy model and what it has achieved in the situations in which it has been applied. I am quietly confident that the force of the Minister's argument will lead him inexorably in the same direction as the amendment. Ministers apparently believe that the academy model is fundamental to improving standards in failing schools, and in improving overall standards in areas where there are no good schools by injecting a new, good school into the local community. The amendment is intended to extend the values, opportunities and strengths in the academy model. 
 In speaking his mind about the great benefits of the policy, the Minister will surely recognise that the governing body of a school might see the model as an opportunity and decide that it would remove the shackles and difficulties of whatever sort that have held that school back in the past. The governors might decide that with academy status, their school could take great strides forward. Schools in areas where there are already other city academies might make such decisions. I remember discussing a potential danger with Ministers when the initiative was first proposed, in something like its current form, in the Committee on the Bill that became the School Standards and Framework Act 1998—is the Minister about to correct me on that?

Stephen Timms: The discussions to which the hon. Gentleman refers took place in the Standing Committee on the Bill that became the Learning and Skills Act 2000, of which he was also a member.

Graham Brady: I am grateful to the Minister. Perhaps I have attended too many such Committees. In the debates on the Learning and Skills Bill, we considered the possible impact of the creation of a city academy on the other schools in the area.
 Some of those other schools might, not in a defensive but in an entirely positive way, see a city academy in the locality making great steps forward and say ''this is something that we should like to do—we believe that we can go in the same direction''. 
 Amendment no. 467 does not seek to place the Secretary of State in a dead end or to constrain her to accept any application from a governing body. It does not go so far as to say that all schools should become city academies overnight or have the freedom to do so if they wish. It seeks to open another route through which a school might move in that direction. I hope very much that, in sharing some of the enthusiasm 
 about the benefits that might flow from the expansion of city academies, the Minister might look sympathetically upon that new route, which would provide for a great blossoming of academies within and without our cities in the years ahead.

Chris Grayling: I too, welcome you to the Chair, Mr. Griffiths. My point is about the nature of the provision established by the amendment, and I should like to make a comparison with our earlier discussions concerning the rights and duties of governing bodies to take advantage of opportunities created by this legislation. I remind the Minister of our deliberations about earned enhancement, and the right to opt out of particular elements of the curriculum. We discussed the fact that governing bodies were expected by the Government to put forward formal applications. It was not something that would happen naturally; it was down to a governing body to submit an application to take advantage of the rights, privileges and opportunities set out in the earlier part of the Bill.
 It therefore seems incongruous that those same governing bodies do not have, under the current legislation, the right to put in an application to become an academy. My hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale, West has set out very accurately the potential benefits of the academy model. That has been recognised by the Government in the way in which they have put forward the proposal. In the spirit of the whole legislation, it would not be right for the Government not to permit the powers encompassed in the amendment for governing bodies when dealing with the academy model as well as when dealing with the rights of enhancement and so forth. I commend the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale, West, and ask the Minister to treat the amendment in the constructive sense in which it has been tabled and to give full consideration to allowing governing bodies to have the rights encompassed by the amendment.

Stephen Timms: I welcome the offer of support from the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale, West. I look forward to witnessing delivery of that on numerous occasions during today's debate. I welcome, in particular, the support for academies expressed both by him and by the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling).
 It is important that we do not undermine the partnership approach that is working so well in the promotion of academies and replace it with something different and less satisfactory. The involvement of existing schools in plans for academies is important, and I assure the Committee that there is nothing to prevent maintained schools from approaching the Department and discussing the possibility of academy status for themselves. In the case of both St. George's school in Bristol and Edgware school in Barnet, it was the school that made the first inquiry to the Department about taking on academy status. The Department subsequently worked with the schools and local education authorities to help identify suitable 
 sponsors to establish an academy. In all the academy projects that are progressing so far, the schools involved have supported what has happened. 
 The hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale, West invited me to celebrate the success of academies, which I should be keen to do, but I should point out to the Committee that none has yet opened. I am confident that they will indeed be very successful, but as we were reminded in one of our exchanges, it was the Learning and Skills Act 2000 that enabled the academies to be set up, and the first will open in September.

Chris Grayling: I simply want to ask whether the Minister agrees with those of us who regard the academy model as having emanated from the city technology colleges. Does he recognise the contribution that they have made and the precedent that they have set for the academy model?

Stephen Timms: We have certainly learned from the city technology college model. Indeed, several of those institutions have been excellent schools and continue to be outstanding. However, with the benefit of hindsight—and some people made the point at the time—some elements of the model were unhelpful. I am particularly anxious, in responding to the amendment, not to repeat those mistakes.
 Other elements of the academy partnership, beyond the school itself, are important. The academy sponsors have a critical role. That was an element of the city technology college model. The amendment would exclude it, I think. It is voluntary or private sector partners—whose involvement will be so critical to the success of the academies—who will make the formal approach to the Secretary of State, and it is the charitable company set up by the sponsors for that purpose that will enter into the funding agreement with the Secretary of State. 
 The amendment also ignores—and this is an aspect on which the city technology college model was seriously at fault—the role of the local education authority. Its opinion is important. Local education authorities should have a voice. Again, in every case so far, the local education authority has been a supportive partner in the establishment of the academies. Excluding LEAs when city technology colleges were established was divisive. The legacy of the problems that that approach created persists in some areas and I would not want those problems to be repeated. 
 The progress that we have made with academies makes it clear that it is possible to construct the partnerships that I have described. It is an important feature of what we are doing that those partnerships should be sustained.

Andrew Turner: The Minister has identified two issues that he considers to be defects in the amendments. I assure him that there was no intention to disregard the role of either local authorities or private sponsors. Indeed, I see no way in which those could be disregarded in the context of the rest of the clause. However, I note his opinion.
 Is the Minister telling us that the Secretary of State would be willing, when a school proposes becoming an academy, to assist in finding a private sponsor, as has happened for new academies, and to connect existing schools with potential private sponsors?

Stephen Timms: We should certainly be prepared to work with a school that wanted to do that, to see whether the proposal was a possibility, to discuss it with the local education authority and to assess the local circumstances and the appropriateness of proceeding. There is no bar to schools doing that. We have said that we want 20 academies up and running by 2005, and we are close to that number. We would certainly be prepared to talk to schools about that.
 Beyond that, I am not sure that the amendment adds much, if anything, to what is currently possible, especially as it is envisaged that the LEA partnership and sponsor continue to be part of the package. Given the assurances that I have made, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will feel that he need not press the amendment.

Graham Brady: I am delighted to respond to the Minister. He has fully accepted the amendment in the spirit in which it was offered. We tabled it in an attempt to help the Government, and to extend the hand of friendship over a policy that we think offers opportunities. He responded in like manner, so I am grateful to him. Those outside the House who pay attention to our proceedings will be encouraged to find that, when there is genuine agreement on such matters, both Opposition and Government Members are prepared to express it.
 The Minister raised the concern that the LEA or sponsor might be excluded by the amendment, which was refuted in an intervention by my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight. I want to emphasise that the amendment is designed merely to institutionalise an opportunity for the governing body to make an approach. The Minister stressed that governing bodies could do so already, and highlighted instances in which they had made such approaches. He also said that an important aspect of the academy policy was the involvement of existing schools in the process. That was all positive. 
 I tabled the amendment in the hope of engendering a moment of consensus and warmth in the Committee, and I think that I have been successful. In that spirit, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. 
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Graham Brady: I beg to move amendment No. 464, in page 42, line 20, after 'agreement', insert
'these subject areas may include English, mathematics or any other core subjects'.

Win Griffiths: With this it will be convenient to take amendment No. 465, in page 42, line 21, after 'abilities', insert
'but not necessarily the whole ability range'.

Graham Brady: Flushed with success, having achieved my objective in relation to the previous amendment, I now want to do more of the same, as amendment No. 464 is intended to be even more helpful to the
 Minister. I was most grateful to him for assisting my memory of the provenance of the provisions in statute. I want to take him back a little further, to the original policy on city technology colleges in the Education Act 1996.
 My hon. Friend the Member for Epsom and Ewell invited the Minister to celebrate the success of CTCs, which he more or less did, and we were grateful for that other moment of consensus. It is welcome that the Government have in some regard sought to build on the success of CTCs, and to take the idea forward with the development of the city academy legislation and now—albeit before any of the city academies are up and running, as the Minister said—by further changes to that legislation. 
 Let us consider the provenance of that form of school. Section 482(2)(c) of the 1996 Act contains the requirement that such schools have 
''a broad curriculum with an emphasis either on science and technology or on technology in its application to the performing and creative arts.''
 That was the initial vision set out for the city colleges, which were typically known as city technology colleges, although some were invited to specialise in the performing and creative arts. It was a prescriptive beginning, with clearly defined curriculum subjects appropriate for the development of specialisms. 
 The Government previously introduced legislation that sought to develop the city college model into the new model of city colleges and academies, as it was termed. Section 130(3) of the Learning and Skills Act 2000 inserted new subsection (2A) into section 482 of the 1996 Act, defining other curriculum subjects in which specialism would be welcomed for city academies and colleges. Those subjects were clearly defined in the 2000 Act as 
''(a) modern foreign languages;
(b) visual arts, performing arts or media arts (or any combination of them);
(c) sport;''
 and—this is where the development of the policy begins to look interesting— 
''(d) any subject specified by order by the Secretary of State''.
 Although the promotion of specialism in some subjects was encouraged because they were specified in the 2000 Act, a little chink also began to open up in the restriction, suggesting that any subject might be included in the curriculum. 
 Clause 62 will replace section 482 of the 1996 Act with a new section 482 on academies that has a rather different formulation. Section 482(2A) of the 1996 Act, which Ministers went to considerable trouble to insert via the 2000 Act, specified certain curriculum subjects— 
''modern foreign languages . . . visual arts . . . sport''
 and 
''any subject specified by order by the Secretary of State''—
 for the city colleges and academies. However, within two years, and before any of the schools or academies has opened its doors, we have a new relaxation of the qualifying characteristics. New section 482(2)(a) of the 
 1996 Act, which is proposed in the Bill, contains the new formula, which is that the school 
''has a broad curriculum with an emphasis on a particular subject area, or particular subject areas, specified in the agreement''.
 We have moved from the formula arrived at in what seemed at the time to be an innovative policy but now seems rather tentative. The restrictive definition of those curriculum subjects that were acceptable only five or six years ago, at the time of the 1996 Act, was relaxed in the 2000 Act. For reasons that we look forward to hearing, Ministers now deem it necessary to enact a further relaxation—before even one city academy has opened its doors and started to accept pupils. 
 I do not know whether the Under-Secretary or the Minister will respond to the debate, but in response to an earlier amendment, the Under-Secretary was helpful enough to dismiss an amendment of a similar nature by saying that it should be opposed because it added nothing to the Bill. The same argument may be advanced now, because amendment No. 464 would simply specify what is implied in the Bill—which is that academies may specialise in 
''English, mathematics or any other core subjects''.
 The importance of that provision is that it gives form to the change in thinking apparent from the legislative changes made over the past few years. It will therefore be interesting to hear the Government's response. I would be happy to reflect on the matter if the Minister were to say that the amendment is unnecessary because it is already possible for an academy to specialise in maths, English, or any other core subject or combination of subjects. It would be an interesting acknowledgement. 
 Amendment No. 465 is similarly designed to draw out the Government's thinking on the selection of pupils for places in city academies. Again, we have to go back to the 1996 Act. Section 482(2)(b) specifies that the school 
''provides education for pupils of different abilities who have attained the age of 11 and who are wholly or mainly drawn from the area in which the school is situated''.
 We then move on to the Bill, which states that the school must provide education for pupils of ''different abilities.'' It is interesting that the Government did not seek to make a dramatic change to the formula as they have done by degrees with the curriculum. 
 I am seeking to discover how Ministers would define the requirement that pupils of different abilities should be educated. The provision may allow for different abilities, which is the substance of amendment No. 465, but not an entirely comprehensive intake from the local community. For instance, looking at some of the curriculum proposals that Ministers advanced elsewhere in the Bill, it may allow a more vocational specialism. Perhaps, in seeking to provide the best possible education, they may want to allow such specialism for those pupils who would find it more difficult to achieve excellence in an academic context. 
 Within the strict terms of the Bill, it would be possible to develop that specialism for a certain percentage of the intake of the academy on the premise that more than one ability band, or more than one part of the ability range, would be welcomed into the school without there being a requirement for the whole ability range to be accepted. I look forward to hearing the Minister's thinking on that. The amendments are intended to develop the Government's thinking, which—judging by previous legislation as well as the Bill—has changed and developed over a relatively short period, given that it is only five or six years since the 1996 Act was debated. In that short time we have seen an explicit change in ministerial thinking, necessitating a change in legislation with regard to the curriculum. 
 On the ability range that will be encouraged to apply to the school, although there has been no change in the terms used in the legislation, there has clearly been a development in Government thinking about the need to specialise in a vocational or an academic route as well as—looking at some of the excellence in cities work—an acceptance that it might be appropriate in some circumstances to select a certain proportion of pupils on academic ability, giving them different treatment in a specialist context. I look forward to hearing the Minister's remarks.

Stephen Timms: We want academies to be inclusive schools in every sense. That desire lies at the heart of our policy on academies. Normally they will be replacements for existing, poorly performing schools, so they are intended to tackle deep-seated problems of underachievement. They will provide new opportunities for children and young people in some of the most disadvantaged areas of the country, and will play an active part in each local family of schools, working with other schools and as a resource for the wider community.
 The amendments appear to enshrine a very different vision, although that was not set out by the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale, West. He presented them as probing amendments rather than statements of policy. I want to make it clear that our vision for academies is firmly an inclusive one. Academies will serve children of all abilities in their local area. The reason why there is such a lot of enthusiasm for them across a wide range of interests and across the partnerships to which I have referred—from sponsors to schools and local education authorities—is that academies are designed to cater for all abilities, not just for a few children. They offer all parents the chance to secure a place for their child and they will be expected to provide a high standard of education for all of their pupils according to their individual needs. They will reflect the communities that they are built to serve.

Andrew Turner: The Minister has mentioned all abilities, but the Bill mentions different abilities. Are they the same thing?

Stephen Timms: I think that they are. If there is any doubt, I shall be happy to make it clear that we want academies to serve the needs of children of all abilities.

Chris Grayling: On a point of clarification, might I use the example of the LEA in which I was involved when I served as a councillor in the London borough of Merton, which has had some successful and some less successful secondary schools. If one of its schools were to become an academy with a specialism in technology, would all pupils who fell within the school's catchment area be able to attend the academy, or would the Merton academy be able to serve pupils across a range of schools who have an aptitude in its specialist subject? What do the Government intend?

Stephen Timms: I am not familiar with the admission arrangements of schools in the London borough of Merton, but I would be surprised if a rigid geographical area applied to every secondary school. People move around the boroughs in London. In south London, as the hon. Gentleman knows, people often move across borough boundaries. I doubt whether the problem that he identified will arise. The establishment of a city academy might lead to changes in other schools' admission arrangements, but I would not envisage the rigid arrangement that he mentioned.

Graham Brady: Is the Minister saying that it is inappropriate for academies to have the same ability as special schools to select up to 10 per cent. on the basis of specialism?

Stephen Timms: No, I am not saying that that is inappropriate. I shall deal more fully with the point in a moment. The Bill makes it clear that all academies must have a specialism, though they are free to adopt a wider range than is available to maintained schools. The hon. Gentleman asked why the provisions are different from earlier legislation. We are seeking greater flexibility and want to remove the need to produce an order for new specialisms to be allowed. We want to promote some new ideas.
 The choice of specialism would be part of the consultation process surrounding the establishment of an academy. The approach allows for a combination of specialisms—business and performing arts, for example, which has been taken up by one of the academies—and has proved attractive in several respects. That explains the difference between the Bill and earlier legislation. Subject to the agreement of the Secretary of State, an academy may specialise in any subject area or any combination, so the Bill will not prevent academies from specialising in any of the subjects mentioned in the amendment. The hon. Gentleman acknowledged that when he moved it.

Graham Brady: I am grateful to the Minister for going so far down the route that I invited him to follow. He says that the Bill will not prevent any of the specialisms in the amendment from being adopted, but would Ministers also be prepared to give full and open consideration to an application for any of them?

Stephen Timms: Yes. I have made it clear that under the proposals academies can choose those specialisms—or, indeed, others. Following consultation with other schools, the LEA and so forth, the decision would be written into the funding agreement with the Secretary of State. I am not aware of any difficulties so far, but if
 there were any, they would be resolved by the Secretary of State.
 To respond to the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell, the fact that a school specialises in a particular branch of the curriculum does not necessarily mean that it may admit pupils on the basis of their aptitude for it. The legal position is that it is open to schools with a particular specialism to admit up to 10 per cent. of their pupils on the basis of their aptitude for the specialism, where that specialism is prescribed in the regulations. Academies are not covered by the regulations, but we have made it clear that we want consistency with the law as it applies to maintained schools, and with the code of practice on admissions. Accordingly, academies may admit pupils on the basis of aptitude in subjects where it is open for maintained schools to do the same. 
 We have consistently made it clear that academies should be inclusive schools catering for pupils of all abilities. That lies at the heart of our vision for academies. I therefore vigorously resist amendment No. 465 and the suggestion that academies should restrict their admissions to only part of the ability range. That is radically opposed to our vision for academies, which is about tackling underachievement in some of our most disadvantaged communities and achieving high standards for the young people living in them. I urge the Committee to reject the amendment. The hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale, West did not press it hard. If he had, it would have shown his intention to undermine our central vision for academies to operate as inclusive schools.

Graham Brady: We have had an instructive debate. The Minister stressed at the outset that academies should be inclusive in every sense. He then observed that where the Bill states that schools cater for different abilities, it means the same as catering for all abilities. Perhaps rather inconsistently, he went on to allow some selection in admissions. He allowed that the same regulations and admissions law that apply to maintained schools would apply to academies, although the mechanism is less direct or clear.
 On the matter of providing for 10 per cent. of selection by aptitude, I shall not go into lengthy debates about how the definition of aptitude supposedly differs from the definition of ability. From the standpoint of the ''Oxford English Dictionary'', the two words are effectively interchangeable. Looking up the one invites the reader to consult the definition of the other, but I shall not dally on that semantic point. 
 In response to my hon. Friend the Member for Epsom and Ewell, the Minister said that no rigid catchment area would apply to an academy in the London borough of Merton. He sought to construct a rather flimsy defence on the grounds that such an academy might be expected to cater for the local community in the same way as any other school, but that there was no such thing as the local community for such a school.

Andrew Turner: My hon. Friend has pointed to an interesting gap in the Minister's defence of the position. One change in the Bill is the deletion of the
 word ''city'' from academies. Does my hon. Friend agree that the Minister did not make it clear what will happen in areas where there are, by means of geography or politics, much clearer catchment areas?

Graham Brady: My hon. Friend makes a valid point, and the Minister may want to intervene and provide some clarity. As my hon. Friend pointed out, the Bill will delete the original requirement for the schools to serve urban areas. The Minister says that there is no such thing as a catchment, even in urban areas, so he watered down his inclusive community school rhetoric. In rural areas, or perhaps an island community, other circumstances may apply, and it might be possible to define a more rigid catchment area.
 On amendment No. 464, the Minister went on to confirm that the Government are looking for greater flexibility and wanted to remove the need for an order to be used to introduce new specialisms. He said that the Bill would have the benefit of allowing a combination of specialisms, and he highlighted the instance of an academy specialising in both business and the performing arts. Helpfully, he went on to say that Ministers would give full consideration to an academy's application to specialise in any of the subjects that are mentioned in amendment No. 464—English, maths or any other core curriculum subject. 
 If I said that we have now a clearer idea of the Government's intentions, I would be going a little too far, but we have clearer idea of the scope and freedom that Ministers intend to enjoy under the legislation, which will extend to the academies' intake, allow limited selection on aptitude and allow English and maths to be included as specialisms for which the academy may require evidence of aptitude. We may therefore see academies wanting to specialise in what would have been traditionally regarded as the academic end of the curriculum. That is positive. Ministers have made it clear that they are trying to be open and flexible on how the new academies operate. Through discussion of the amendments, we have established to an extent the way in which those flexibilities will apply. They will allow any potential specialism and limited selection on aptitude in that specialism. This has been a valuable exercise, and we have drawn out a little of the Minister's thinking. 
 I do not see any sign that the Minister intends to rise again to give further clarification on the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight about how catchment areas will apply outside urban areas. I hope that he will see an opportunity later in our discussions to put more flesh on the bones.

Stephen Timms: I envisage the catchment areas for academies varying in the same way as they do for maintained schools. Admissions arrangements can be framed in a great variety of ways, and I do not expect academies' arrangements to have any particular distinguishing characteristics compared with those of other schools.

Graham Brady: The Minister may be underplaying the extent to which an academy may have benefits,
 especially in terms of its reputation or the excitement or press coverage in a locality that might attend its establishment. An academy may have a disproportionate effect on the patterns of applications in the overall admissions structure in an area.

Andrew Turner: I listened carefully to the Minister's remarks. He does not appear to have dealt with the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Epsom and Ewell that a specialism and a requirement to admit the local community at the same time are two conflicting admission requirements. One can envisage a situation in which an academy with a specialism in languages could be established in a small town in an LEA. There could be oversubscription to that academy in that town, while there is great demand from other towns, perhaps within travelling distance, from youngsters who want to take up that specialism.

Graham Brady: My hon. Friend makes a valid and important point. That is a phenomenon that could equally apply in an urban area, where one academy specialises in performing arts. It would not take a huge leap of the imagination to foresee intense competition among those who wish to develop that specialism and who would like access to a school with that specialism. That might push the aptitude qualification up to a level that would exclude all but a few pupils from the locality from applying under the specialism criteria.
 Those are important questions that the Minister has not entirely addressed. However, he has helped to flag up the extent to which Ministers are proceeding with their eyes open. They clearly intend to develop the academies as schools that are permitted to specialise, perhaps in any subject or combination of subjects. The academies will also be permitted to select a proportion of their pupils for those specialisms, whether they be technical, vocational or academic. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. 
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

David Laws: I beg to move amendment No. 409, in page 42, line 23, at end insert:
'(c) is likely, in the opinion of the local education authority in whose area the school is to be situated and in the opinion of any other local education authority in whose area a significant proportion of the pupils at the school is likely to be resident, to make a significant contribution to the raising of educational standards achieved by children in that or those areas.'
 I will not detain the Committee for too long, in the hope that we may rush through clause 62 by lunchtime, even if we do not get to many of the other clauses. 
 The amendment is designed to be helpful and to probe the Government's policies on city and other academies. Will the Minister tell us what research his Department has undertaken on the value of academies and the quantifiable benefit for those who attend them and for pupils of other schools in the same LEA? Will he confirm that no city or other academies have yet been established? How many does he believe will be established in the coming year? Does he expect that only 20 academies will be established by 2005, and what proportion of the relevant pupil population will they cover? Is he concerned that we seem to be spending a great deal of time on a sector that 
 represents a small proportion of the total school population? Is he minded to put in place for all schools a more sensible overall structure that will deliver the benefits that he seeks to deliver through specific initiatives such as academies? 
 The Minister's comments this morning about the advantages that academies will offer contrast with his comments last week about earned autonomy. He said that the criteria will be such that only one in 10 schools qualify for earned autonomy. Many hon. Members—not only members of the Committee—will be concerned that the Government are giving much attention to particular initiatives and wheezes that will break open new education possibilities but that will leave many schools without the intended benefits.

Stephen Timms: Let me first deal with the hon. Gentleman's more general points, rather than those tied specifically to the amendment. The Bill is about raising standards throughout the system but particularly in secondary schools. We are determined to establish a modern and effective system that will command the confidence of every community, and that means raising standards in a large number of schools. He is aware that we set targets for every school: by 2004, at least 20 per cent. of pupils should be getting five or more good GCSEs, and the proportion rises to 25 per cent. by 2006. We want to encourage a new wave of innovation that will benefit every school.
 The hon. Gentleman asked about research. We have learned lessons from experience. I expect the first two or three academies to open in September this year. I confirm that we envisage 20 academies by 2005, as was mentioned in the White Paper. It is true that that is a relatively small proportion of the total number of secondary schools, but I expect that the academies will have greater significance because of their role as innovators. New patterns and ideas that emerge from their experience will be applied widely. I said earlier that academies will have a full role in the local family of schools. Like other specialist schools, they will work with schools in the area so that the benefits of their high standards will extend to children in other institutions.

Graham Brady: Would the Minister say a word about academies vis-à-vis schools that have been given exemptions to innovate? Is the role of an academy in raising standards in a locality more effective than that of schools with the power to innovate, or will other schools pick up on the model of the academy and seek innovation in a particular direction as a result of seeing the success of the academy?

Stephen Timms: It is not a question of one being more effective than the other. I expect to see a diverse range of approaches and innovations. The Bill sets out greater freedom for academies than for maintained schools. I anticipate that many of the successful ideas developed in academies will be taken up by other schools, through using the power to innovate or changing the arrangements for earned autonomy.
 We want new ideas to be developed so that we can raise standards throughout the entire secondary 
 system. The amendment relates to the role of LEAs in the academy decision-making process. We expect academies to be established in partnership with LEAs. We are delighted with the enthusiasm that LEAs are showing for the establishment of city academies. LEAs have been active partners in every city academy partnership announced so far, and we have received many expressions of interest from LEAs wanting to explore the opportunities that city academies offer. 
 However, an LEA or an adjacent LEA might not support the case for an academy. We have made it clear that the Secretary of State has to consult the LEA and any other LEA from which he or she thinks pupils might attend the academy. If the authorities do not support it, they will say so. The Secretary of State must consider those views alongside the case made for the academy by sponsors and others. The LEA's view might not be the right one. In an exceptional case, an LEA could set its face against an academy, despite the Secretary of State taking a view that an academy was exactly what the area needed. In such a case, we would want the Secretary of State to authorise the academy to go ahead. The amendment would prevent that, so I hope that the Committee agrees that it is not helpful.

David Laws: I am grateful to the Minister for his response. I appreciate that my comments were quite wide. Having had that debate, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

David Laws: I beg to move amendment No. 415, in page 42, line 25, leave out ''consult'' and insert ''seek the consent of''.
 The Minister addressed quite a lot of my points on the amendment in his previous response. Amendment No. 415 would require a need for the consent of LEAs in the establishment of academies. The Minister said that he was delighted that LEAs have shown great enthusiasm in establishing academies, and that they had been active partners in each initiative to set up an academy so far. Has any LEA shown signs that it is not happy to work to establish academies? Has there been any resistance to the introduction of academies? Given the Minister's earlier comments that academies would be important in areas of high deprivation or where there are failing schools, does he agree that LEAs should be actively involved and give consent? LEAs should be fundamental to the plans to establish academies in such areas.

Graham Brady: On a point of information, can the hon. Gentleman explain if the amendment would require consent from the neighbouring authority also?

David Laws: It would. In his plans to establish academies and direct additional finance to them, does the Minister envisage some flexibility, which may allow the local education authorities to use such moneys in a different way; rather than setting up academies themselves, the money would go to an academy project in that LEA area to achieve the same objectives but through a different structure.

Andrew Turner: The amendment is extraordinarily ambiguous. Its comprehension was not assisted by the hon. Gentleman's proposal; he maundered around
 the word ''consent'' without explaining whether the amendment should be taken literally. The amendment says that the Secretary of State shall ''seek'' consent, not ''obtain'' it. I shall be happy to give way if the hon. Gentleman wants to intervene. He may want to clarify whether he intends to allow local education authorities a veto on the establishment of city academies.

David Laws: We have confidence in LEAs because they are locally elected bodies—that is as good a reason to have confidence in them as it is in the Secretary of State—and it is our intention to allow them to decide how education and education policy should be organised in their areas.

Andrew Turner: In that case, the hon. Gentleman is extremely naïve. He may have confidence in his LEA, or in that of the adjoining LEA in Dorset, which is now run by the Conservatives, but he cannot possibly—

David Laws: To clarify, I have confidence in local electors to take such decisions and to elect people who will put in place the policies that they favour.

Andrew Turner: In that case, the hon. Gentleman's party has never consulted the electorate in the London boroughs of Hackney, Haringey, Southwark, or Lambeth. Gloucestershire education authority, which is under Liberal Democrat leadership, is in danger of being recognised as a failing LEA. Some LEAs are not even as good as those run by his party—

Chris Grayling: I draw my hon. Friend's attention to the fact that in many cases the issue is not the quality of the LEA but the tensions between adjoining LEAs on school admissions policies. In my constituency, the London borough of Sutton intervened with the schools adjudicator to overrule a decision taken in the borough of Epsom and Ewell for the benefit of that borough's pupils. It is not simply about ability, but about cross-border tensions.

Andrew Turner: It is indeed. The hon. Member for Yeovil seems to be driving us towards a situation in which an LEA under the control of, for example, Surrey county council, could say, ''Yes, let us have a city academy close to the border with Sutton.'' However, Sutton, being an antediluvian Liberal Democrat-controlled local education authority, which is hostile to choice for parents and the improvement of standards by the adventurous means that the Government propose, will say, ''No, not on your nellie.'' In the words of the late Lord Hailsham, that is stark, staring bonkers.

Graham Brady: Does it occur to my hon. Friend that when the hon. Member for Yeovil says that he has confidence in the local electorate to take decisions that are right for the area, he is providing for the local electorate in a neighbouring authority to take decisions for those for whom they have no responsibility and whom they do not represent?

Andrew Turner: My hon. Friend explains the position with greater clarity than I could have achieved. The hon. Member for Yeovil made it clear that he does not like innovation.

David Laws: No.

Andrew Turner: The hon. Gentleman denies it, but he believes—

David Laws: If the hon. Gentleman was listening to my earlier comments—I am sure that he was—he would have heard me say, especially in relation to the previous clause, that my concern was that the Government were not creating an overall structure for schools that allowed enough innovation and local decision making. They were concentrating on wheezes to set up programmes that would affect a small number of schools throughout the country but would not put in place a coherent structure for the whole country.

Andrew Turner: That is exactly the problem. The hon. Gentleman uses the derogatory term ''wheezes'', some of which are jolly good, but he does not appear to understand that we cannot impose a national programme of innovation. Even the Government understand that such a programme cannot be imposed equally throughout the whole country at once. One thing for which I in my small way applaud the Government is their understanding in introducing the Bill that out of little acorns, great oaks grow; the Liberal Democrats do not seem to understand that at all.
 If it had not been for the small acorn of city technology colleges, we would not have specialist schools and technology schools. If it had not been for the small acorn of grant-maintained schools, we would not have many of the proposals to allow earned innovation and the development of grant-maintained status by another means. If it were not for proposals that we introduced in a small way in our time in government—I fully accept that they did not percolate through to every child; would that they could have in the time available—those innovations could not have benefited children throughout the country. 
 The hon. Gentleman is saying that the local education authority, however incompetent, stupid, failing or barmy, should have a veto. I hope that I need only utter the name ''Hackney'' for hon. Members on both sides of the Committee to understand the sort of LEA to which I am referring. That is a wholly ridiculous position.

Stephen Timms: I think that the hon. Member for Yeovil accused me of responding to amendment No. 415 when I was supposed to be thinking of amendment No. 409. I shall defend myself against that charge, because amendment No. 409 also refers to the LEA's role in the decision process and appears to imply that an academy should not go ahead if the LEA in whose area the school is to be situated, or any other LEA in whose area a significant proportion of the pupils at the school are likely to be resident, did not think that it should. That is why I responded to that point when dealing with the hon. Gentleman's previous amendment. He is right that this amendment covers rather similar terrain.
 The hon. Gentleman asked whether an LEA has ever not wished to proceed with an academy. In 
 reality, nine times out of 10, it is the LEA that approaches the Department with a project. The LEA may or may not have a sponsor in mind at that stage, but it will usually have a school or possibly more than one in mind when it makes the approach. We take the matter forward on that basis. Many LEAs may have had discussions and decided that they do not want to proceed with an academy arrangement, but we deal all the time with approaches from LEAs that want to take the process forward and see it as a great opportunity for them as I described. 
 The hon. Gentleman also asked whether I envisaged the funding under discussion being provided to LEAs for them to use for completely different purposes. I am aware that he has not been present for all our debates, but we have already discussed earned autonomy and the power to innovate. In addition, there is funding for schools that face challenging circumstances. There is the excellence in cities programme and excellence clusters for schools in disadvantaged and rural areas. All those initiatives give schools and LEAs additional resources to raise standards in their area. I do not see how anyone could envisage the funding under discussion being used for those purposes, because an ambitious and full array of initiatives is already in place so that we can raise standards throughout the secondary system and in particular give extra help in areas where the challenges are greatest. The academy programme is part of that and, for the reasons I have outlined, the amendment would not help.

David Laws: I detect a certain lack of support for the amendment. I may not, therefore, press it to a vote. After my earlier promises, I am not sure that I should be drawn into a long debate. I simply note, with some concern, the lack of confidence that some Conservative and Labour Members show for elected local government and the competence of local electors to choose their representatives. On behalf of my party, I wish to express concern that the initiatives that the Government are introducing with every good intention are targeted towards a small proportion of schools and do not give those powers and delegated authorities to enough schools.

Chris Grayling: It is a bit rich for the hon. Gentleman to put in an occasional appearance in Committee and then accuse the other two parties of showing no interest in local education authorities. The point that hon. Members on both sides have been making is that the issue is about the right of veto. Does he recognise that one can be supportive of local education authorities without suggesting that they should always, in all circumstances, have a power of veto over this matter?

David Laws: I shall not prolong the debate. I am glad to have stirred things up on these Benches and on the Isle of Wight. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Win Griffiths: We now come to amendment No. 466. I should point out that there is a misprint. It should read:
''after 'at' insert 'unless this is contrary to an order under section 2(1) (a)' ''.

Graham Brady: I beg to move amendment No. 466, in page 42, line 36, after 'at' insert
'unless this is contrary to an order under section 2 (1) (a)'.
 I am grateful to you Mr. Griffiths, as I am largely dependent on the amendment paper this morning. In dealing with the last amendment both the Minister and my hon. Friend the Member for Epsom and Ewell were a little hard on the hon. Member for Yeovil who has clearly been the victim of a hit and run attack. The hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis) drafted the amendments and left him to carry the can. The Committee has treated him a little severely. I would seek to be more generous to him. He did a good job in difficult circumstances. 
 Having proposed amendments earlier that were intended to be entirely and hugely helpful to Ministers, I have a small confession to make. This amendment is not quite as helpful as my previous offerings. It is intended to draw attention to an inconsistency in the Government's approach. All hon. Members would agree that the academy is a slightly odd creature in so far as it is defined by legislation as an independent school and yet is intended to be dependent upon funding from the Department for Education and Skills, rather in the manner of a maintained school. I make no criticism of that. If I did, the Minister would immediately draw my attention to the origins of this approach and this structure in earlier legislation. 
 Quite properly in the context of an independent school that will derive its income from the state, the legislation seeks to set out certain limitations and requirements that apply to those independent schools, which go far beyond the restrictions that apply to other independent schools that derive their funding through a different route. New section 482(4) specifies: 
''An agreement under this section shall make any payments by the Secretary of State dependent on the fulfilment of—
(a) conditions and requirements imposed for the purpose of securing that no charge is made in respect of admission to (or attendance of) the school or, subject to such exceptions as may be specified in the agreement, in respect of education provided at the school;''
 That is a clear statement on state funding for academies that are independent—I will not say independent state schools. The requirement is clear that no charge should be made for admissions or education. 
 There are interesting contrasts. Because of funding pressures in many parts of the country, schools are increasingly finding it necessary to seek financial contributions from parents. Under current legislation, parents may be invited to make a financial contribution to a school, but they may not be required to make such a contribution. Members of the Committee will be aware of the celebrated incident when the London Oratory school sought a voluntary contribution from parents of some £350 a year. The Prime Minister refused to reveal whether he had put his hand in his pocket along with other parents. That incident was a stark illustration of the extent of the practice of asking parents for voluntary contributions, and of the significant sums of money that can be involved. 
 I recently visited the Islamia primary school, which also seeks a voluntary contribution. The school serves a mixed community of often not wealthy parents, a large percentage of whom cannot meet that contribution, which is nevertheless requested. From memory, the sum is in excess of £400 for those who can make the annual contribution to the cost of educating their children. 
 The legislation appears to place a harsher requirement on an academy, which is an independent school, albeit one that is funded by the state. Does the Minister believe that the requirement goes beyond that which applies to maintained schools, which are constrained from making a compulsory levy on parents but not from seeking a voluntary levy on parents? 
 The amendment refers to another inconsistency. We encountered in debates on earlier clauses the dramatic scale of the powers, freedoms and flexibilities that Ministers seek to take under the legislative authority. We briefly discussed the potential implications of that wide discretion. Clause 2(1)(a) gives the Secretary of State the power to confer on the applicant exemption from any requirement imposed by education legislation. The Minister was good enough to confirm that that extended to the ability to give exemptions from those sections of the Education Act 1996 that constrain matters for which charges may be levied legitimately. The 1996 Act sets that out in considerable detail: for example, whether a school trip takes place in school hours, partly outside, wholly outside, whether it is relevant to the curriculum and so on. It is concerned with the relevance to the curriculum of a particular music lesson, for example. 
 The Minister said that he had no intention of giving maintained schools the power to innovate, or introduce charges. Many maintained schools are seeking to levy a voluntary charge from parents. Under the powers to innovate, they may seek to suspend the prohibition that prevents them from making those charges compulsory. Clause 2(1)(a) might allow a maintained school to introduce charging for places at the school. It is the starkest possible illustration of the wide scope that Ministers are taking. 
 A completely different approach is taken in clause 62. The Minister said that it was absurd to amend clause 2 to prevent charges from being introduced in maintained schools. He said that his Government would not do it, and he invited me to say that the Opposition have no intention of introducing charges in maintained schools, which I happily did. He thought it was absurd to incorporate a prohibition of charging for maintained schools, but the Bill does precisely that for independent schools funded by the state. No charge is to be made for admission to, or attendance at, the school. The prohibition, which apparently does not need to be applied to maintained schools, is clear. 
 I have tabled the amendment to challenge the Minister to revisit his earlier reluctance to include a 
 prohibition in clause 2. I have also tabled it to raise the question of voluntary and compulsory charges by maintained or independent state schools. I have previously tabled a written question seeking detail from Ministers about those schools that do want to levy a voluntary charge on parents, the sums of money that are sought and how much is raised by the schools. It is one of many important aspects of the daily experience of parents in the schooling of their children in maintained schools for which Ministers do not have an answer. They say that the information is not collected centrally, and the Government do not apparently even need to be aware of where levies are charged. It is something in which Ministers should take an interest, because it is of increasing concern for parents in many parts of the country. 
 When responding to amendment No. 466, I invite the Minister to address those concerns and explain the extent to which he expects new section 482(4)(a) to apply. He should flesh out the extent of exceptions that he has in mind, which might be specified in the agreement about education provided at the school. Does he expect that any exception should be in the relevant sections of the 1996 Act, which he is prepared to see potentially disapplied by clause 2? Is he merely acting in the short term and saying that this is how the exceptions will be defined, or does he have in mind a different definition of the exceptions to the charging regime? Is he considering a harsher regime than that implied by the clause—no charges under any circumstances—or an exception that would permit the levying of a voluntary or means-tested charge? Where does the Minister see this part of the Bill taking the academies, and why is there a contrast between their treatment and that of other maintained schools, particularly those with powers to innovate?

Chris Grayling: I shall endeavour to be brief. I echo the comments made by my hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale, West. He cited the example of the Oratory, and there is no doubt that many schools across the educational spectrum seek contributions from parents in different ways for different purposes, and that could cause legal problems given the clause's loose phrasing. The Minister should address that point.
 There is another aspect to this discussion, to which my hon. Friend did not allude. Does the Minister think that, rather than making it possible, the clause risks excluding the involvement of private sector educators in the establishment of academies? I think back to what has been probably the greatest educational scandal in this country in my lifetime. Some of our greatest state schools, such as Manchester grammar school, were forced out of the state sector. People from all backgrounds in the Manchester area were deprived access to the quality education that Manchester grammar school offered. That situation was replicated throughout the country, with grammar schools being forced to become comprehensives or to move into the independent sector. 
 I regret the fact that so many former grammar schools are now in the independent sector, and we should encourage some of them to return to the state sector, at least in part. Otherwise, the children whose 
 families cannot pay will be deprived of the skills and expertise that those schools have built up over long histories. There may be an opportunity under the Bill for those who are already running successful independent schools to help to establish academies. They could offer their experience, knowledge and even resources to the establishment of an academy alongside existing schools. Perhaps there could be even closer ties. We discussed the right of individual schools in the state sector to form groups. Have the Government addressed the possibility that a group might include private and state schools? They would be provided with common resources under a single umbrella. 
 A range of innovative ideas could come forward as a result of the legislation, including possibilities that the Government have not envisaged. The Minister keeps telling us that the Bill offers opportunities for innovation, but the stipulation in the clause prevents that.

Graham Brady: I listened with considerable interest to my hon. Friend, who made an important point. It occurs to me that the Minister has considered some of those possibilities, and that that may underlie the wide powers that he seeks in clause 13, which will allow him to make payments to independent schools to educate any number of children. In effect, he has reintroduced the assisted places scheme, or even the direct grant scheme to which he referred. Is not it odd that in clause 13 he seeks wide powers but in clause 62 he seeks to constrain them?

Chris Grayling: My hon. Friend makes an interesting point. The clause risks constraining potential. We have heard much from the Prime Minister and Government Members in recent weeks about their wish to strengthen ties between the public and private sectors and to increase the involvement of private sector management in the education system. We are suggesting not only that private sector companies should be invited to come into the education system, but that educators in the independent sector should be offered an opportunity to come into the state system under the umbrella of an academy. They could share their expertise, resources and the culture that they have built up in their schools to create academies that could offer children from all walks of life an opportunity to turn their education round.
 The Government are offering an exciting opportunity. However, I caution the Minister that the clause will make achieving such initiatives more difficult and less likely. I hope that he will give us the benefit of his thoughts on the subject. Would he welcome an opportunity under the academy umbrella for schools such as Manchester grammar to become involved again in the state sector? Does he accept that the clause represents an impediment to such a development?

Stephen Timms: We are spending a long time on the issue. I shall respond briefly, because we have been round this course before. I regret that Opposition Members did not take up the offer made by my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, East (Mr. Heppell) to change the order in which the business
 was taken. The knife will fall, but we could have spent more time on some of the clauses immediately following this one.
 I am happy to assure the Committee again that we do not intend that academies should be able to levy charges other than in the narrow circumstances in which maintained schools can do so. For example, they can seek voluntary contributions or charge for some school trips. Academies will be treated in exactly the same way as maintained schools in that respect. 
 The hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale, West suggested that there was a difference, but there is not. The funding agreement for academies mirrors exactly the charging provisions applied to maintained schools under sections 449 to 462 of the Education Act 1996. We are determined that academies should help to raise standards, particularly in some of the most disadvantaged parts of the country. They must reach the pupils who need them most, and allowing them to charge would not support that aim: it would undermine it. 
 Earlier, I made the point that under no circumstances would the Government abandon their commitment to free education. I urge the Opposition to repeat their commitment on that front. On the basis of those assurances, I invite the hon. Gentleman to withdraw the amendment.

Graham Brady: Again, we have had some very interesting exchanges. The Minister says that the funding regime for these schools will be precisely the same as that which applies to maintained schools, yet that is not the structure that the Bill provides. It sets out a completely different definition of the restrictions on charging that will apply to academies. If the regime were entirely comparable to that which applies to other maintained schools, this clause would not be necessary as it stands. It would surely be more appropriate explicitly to refer to the restrictions that apply elsewhere.
 The Minister has also made it clear that the powers under clause 2 of the Bill will allow subsections 449 to 462 of the Education Act 1996 to be suspended, thereby opening the door to charging in principle. I am grateful to the Minister for quite properly reiterating the fact that at present the Government have no intention of introducing charges for maintained schools. He asked me to repeat a similar commitment, but I have already gone further than that. Earlier in our proceedings, I gave the Minister the opportunity to include that commitment in the Bill. I do not feel that I need to make any further commitments on that. We have already gone way beyond where the Government stands in that regard. 
 My hon. Friend the Member for Epsom and Ewell challenged the Minister, and members of the Committee will note that he did not take up that challenge. Although he has been very courteous in seeking to cover the points that have been raised, he may have caused some raised eyebrows in the Committee, as some hon. Members may have wondered whether my hon. Friend had hit on something. 
 Given that the Minister was not prepared to rule out the use of some aspects of the Bill as a mechanism by which some of the former direct-grant grammar schools could be invited back into the maintained sector, we were left to conclude that that is the Government's intention. Opposition Members, and I hope many Labour Members, would welcome that. 
 At the start of our proceedings, I noted the biographical details of members of the Committee. I am delighted that our nation's grammar schools are well represented on the Government Benches. I would be even more delighted if schools that were forced into the fee-paying, independent sector could be brought back into the state sector, so that they are more widely available to people regardless of their means or ability to pay. The Opposition would welcome that. We certainly have no intention of pushing the Government or the legislation into charging for school places, but we want greater clarity in that regard. 
 The Minister said that the funding arrangements for academies replicated those from maintained schools, which allow them to seek voluntary contributions from parents of children who attend the school. That is entirely appropriate. It would be very odd if Ministers were seeking to use these powers to prohibit academies, which are more independent, from seeking voluntary contributions, given that they are prepared to permit that practice in the maintained sector. However, the assurance that the Minister happily and clearly gave is not in the Bill, and I do not see where it arises. 
 It is important to stress that the Minister once again tried to suggest that the Opposition have been unhelpful in the negotiations on the positioning of so-called knives. As I made clear at the beginning of our sitting this morning, the contrary is true.

John Heppell: When these matters are referred to in Committee, I should like to have a chance to respond. I want to make the Government's position clear. We have consistently offered the Opposition more time. To date they have not asked us for a single minute of extra time.

Graham Brady: It is rather odd that the Government Whip is getting into a high state of excitement, apparently goaded by his hon. Friend the Minister. The Minister raised this point; I did not. I wanted to make it clear that the positioning of so-called knives has caused difficulties for the Opposition throughout our proceedings. It has prevented both Opposition parties from examining those parts of the Bill that we wish to scrutinise. It is absurd to suggest that extra time is available, but that it must be used on those parts of the Bill that the Opposition do not wish to discuss and scrutinise. It is important to put that on the record.

John Heppell: May I come back on that?

Win Griffiths: Order. The Government's position is clear, as is that of the Opposition, although they do not coincide. That is not surprising.

John Heppell: On a point of order, Mr. Griffiths. It should be placed on the record that we have offered to move knives as long as the Opposition are prepared to put in extra time. They want the knives to be moved without extra time.

Graham Brady: We want what we were offered at the outset—an opportunity to focus our attention on those aspects of the Bill that we feel warrant scrutiny. I have made my views known. The member of the silent service, as it used to be known, has made his position clear. Your position, Mr. Griffiths, is also clear. We are grateful to you for it.
 The Minister has not given us adequate reassurance on amendment No. 466. He has not dealt with the contradictions between the treatment of academies and the treatment of maintained schools. His only direct allusion to that point was to confirm that the same rules will apply to academies as apply to maintained schools. He gets himself into an even more difficult position in that by implication he confirms that the powers under clause 2 to allow exceptions relating to innovation will also apply to academies. He again makes the point that subsection (4)(a) provides that no charging should be allowed, and yet he confirms that, as with maintained schools, other powers in the Bill will enable that provision to be suspended in relation to academies. 
 The Minister is getting himself into an absurd contradictory position. In some regards, he says that it is necessary to put something in the Bill even though precisely the same rules will apply as apply to other schools. In other regards, however, he says that it is simply not necessary to put a provision in the Bill, because it is absurd and not the Government's intention. Now the circle is being completed, because even where it is necessary to put a provision in the Bill, it is also possible to remove it by ministerial order and not by a decision of the Committee or the House. 
 That absurd position shows that the Government are either confused or are seeking disingenuously to move the debate and the legislative framework forward. Committee members are left to draw the obvious conclusion that Ministers may intend the Bill to have certain consequences and outcomes. It enables them to do whatever they please by order once it has received Royal Assent, yet they are not prepared to go into any detail or to specify how they intend to use those powers. 
 We have been clear about our strong support for what Ministers say they intend to do if that can have a real impact and make a real contribution to raising standards. However, hon. Members on both sides of the Committee and people outside have a right to expect more specificity, clarity and openness about where Ministers want to take our schools in the longer term. The provisions for academies are wide, and they purport to limit their ability to charge, yet at the same time the Minister confirms that he expects to have the powers to remove those limitations. He has not dealt adequately with our concerns, but I said at the outset that this was a probing amendment. We sought to elicit from the Minister his true intentions. He has not been particularly helpful in that regard, but I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. 
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

David Laws: I beg to move amendment No. 416, in page 42, line 38 after 'school' insert—
'( ) compliance with the duties imposed on the governing bodies of maintained schools'.
 This is a short probing amendment. I thought that I was joking earlier when I said that we would manage only to finish dealing with clause 62. The amendment is designed to probe the Government's intentions for the duties that will be imposed on leadership groups in academies and how they will compare with governing bodies of maintained schools. In particular, does the Minister envisage that academies will have to comply with the local admissions code of practice? Will that simply be a matter between the academy and the Secretary of State?

Stephen Timms: The arrangement will be through a funding agreement between the academy and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. That is a more appropriate arrangement than the ones that exist for maintained schools with LEAs, because the academy has a direct relationship with the Secretary of State. I can give the hon. Gentleman the particular assurance that he seeks. Academies—unlike city technology colleges, by the way—will comply in full with the requirements on special educational needs and admissions and exclusions legislation as it applies to maintained schools. The hon. Gentleman was particularly concerned about the admissions point, and I can well understand why. It is an important issue. The commitment will be delivered through the funding agreement between each academy and the Secretary of State.

Andrew Turner: I am interested in the amendment because it again shows the failure of the hon. Member for Yeovil to appreciate the distinction between—[Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman has not had much experience on the Committee. [Interruption.] I am sorry. I hope that he accepts that that was meant in friendship. I was talking about the hon. Gentleman's failure to appreciate the distinction between independent schools that are funded by the Secretary of State and state schools. He seems to be proposing that academies should comply with all the duties. Presumably he would expect that to be the case for city colleges as well. Does he understand the limits that that might place on the Secretary of State's ability to find sponsors for academies? One distinction that is evident between the private sector and the—
 It being One o'clock, The chairman proceeded, pursuant to Sessional Order D [28 June 2001] and the Orders of the Committee [11, 13, 18 December 2001 and 10 January 2002], to put forthwith the Question already proposed from the Chair. 
 Amendment negatived. 
 The chairman then proceeded to put forthwith the Questions necessary to dispose of the business to be concluded at that time. 
 Clauses 62 and 63 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Stephen Timms: I need to move that clause 64 should not stand part of the Bill, and that Government new clause 5 should be agreed.

Win Griffiths: In that case, because of the timetable motion and the way in which we conduct business, the Government will have to vote against clause 64 now, and we shall deal with new clause 5 when we reach the relevant part of the Bill.
 Clause 64 disagreed to. 
 Clause 65 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 7 - Academies: supplementary

Amendment made: No. 285, in page 150, leave out line 23.—[Mr. Timms.] 
 Schedule 7, as amended, agreed to. 
 Clause 66 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 67 - Duty of leas to secure proposals

Amendments made: No. 274, in page 45, line 30, leave out ''30'' and insert ''31''. 
 No. 275, in page 45, line 36, leave out ''subsection (3)(b) of''.—[Mr. Timms.] 
 Clause 67, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill. 
 Schedule 8 agreed to. 
 Clause 68 ordered to stand part of the Bill. 
 Schedule 9 agreed to. 
 Clauses 69 to 71 ordered to stand part of the Bill. 
 Schedule 10 agreed to. 
 Further consideration adjourned.—[Mr. Heppell.] 
 Adjourned accordingly at two minutes past One o'clock till this day at half-past Four o'clock.